I appreciate the sentiment of the bill, and there are a number of clauses I could support. However, I’m slightly concerned that some of its provisions could be construed as unconstitutional.
Namely, Article VI, Section 5 states that “the right to keep and bear fire-arms and low-potency explosives shall not be infringed.” Section 2, Clause 1 of this bill does exactly that for numerous groups of people. That being said, I agree that it should be harder for many of these people to own guns. To maintain the spirit of the bill but ensure it would survive a constitutional challenge, I’d recommend amending Section 2, Clause 1 to read:
Also, on a personal note, I think some of these groups are being treated a little harshly. Being convicted for a money-related offense doesn’t make someone especially more or less likely to use a firearm to commit a crime. Same goes for being dishonorably discharged from the army—in fact, those people could actually be in a better position to use their firearms for causes of good in the event that a violent situation transpires.
Section 2, Clause 1 is also slightly concerning. While our constitution does not specifically grant privacy rights to our citizens, those rights are implied in Article VI, Section 9: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, communications and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.“ Could this new gun registry not be seen as an unreasonable search into people’s private property? Either way, I’m certainly against spending taxpayer dollars to encourage people to put their names on the registry.
Anyhow, those are most of my thoughts and concerns. I apologize for coming in late on this. Hopefully it won’t happen again.
Cheers.